Monday, January 28, 2013
New York Times In Pace Reqiescat
The old gray lady is dead and gone, replaced with something that doesn't in the least resemble journalism. And yes, the Times is that terrible - I squirm just reading the Science Times, which is the only section worth reading these days - the rest of the paper is worthless since there is no way that you can have confidence that the facts are as reported. (Yes, the NY Times has lost its credibility). But, even Science Times is filled to the brim with Democratic assumptions about the world, along with the usual biased reporting.
New York - The End of An Era
Sometimes you simply have to blame the people - who are not smart, who can't be trusted to make the right decisions and who should stay home and not vote. These people have elected those that appointed the judges, and the politicians that fight the police tooth and nail. Let the city go the way of Detoit, Camden, Newark, East St. Louis and other places where crime has driven away a substantial part of the population.
Some months back I had some work in Camden and looked at all the vacant lots, and got a real vision of how a city can be reduced to just an area of land through the incompetence and corruption of leaders. Without people a city becomes just that, a plot of land. If the people don't want police to do their job effectively, it's what will happen, people will simply go elsewhere when crime gets too bad. Look at Newark's population, look at Detroit, look at other cities under Democrats. The people voted for leaders that adopted policies that caused those who lived there to leave, and now much of Detroit et als are just that an area of land, sans people, a place that used to be a city. Where did the people go? Elsewhere.
History is filled with similar examples but it isn't usually as a result of the policies of the leaders.
Can't happen in New York? Wrong - of course it can - there's nothing that insulates New York from the ills that policians can impose on it. We shall shortly find out if the era of Giuiliani and Bloomberg is a short interlude in the death of the city - what guarantee is there that New York won't immediately resume its 1990 slide to oblivion once a Democratic mayor, heholden to the unoins and the splinter groups, is back in office?
Those who recall the Dinkins era should also recall the drugs, crime, the constant fiscal problems, the crowds of homeless, the sqeegee men, the spray paint all over the place, the inability for government to do something as simple as cleaning up Times Square - despite decades of effort.
If anything ever proved the importance of good government it was how Giuliani saved new York. But New York is also ground zero for the Democratic media and Giuliani never got any credit for saving the city - certainly not in terms of comparison with the frightful mess that had been made of it for years by Democratic politicans. Likewise formerr Republican Bloomberg has never recieved the credit for what he did, not in terms of Bloomberg continuing Giuliani's policies which is what Bloomberg has done.
It is almost fitting that the litigation against stop and frisk is happening now, at the end of the Bloomberg era, and may later been seen as the beginning of the end for the city as the old, corrupt ways resume once we have a Democrat in the Mayor's office. You have to wonder how long it will take for the new administration in city hall to destroy what Giuliani built, and what Bloomberg carried on. it doesn't seem right that the lives of 8 million people are shortly going to be in the hands of those who have shown that they cannot govern, or that thier method of governance leads to such dreadful consequences.
But, the voters have no one but themselves to blame - certainly there have been more than enough evidence of just how awful the Democratic way of governing is - just look at places like Newark, Paterson, New York pre Giuliani and others and it is there for all to see. If the voters see this or should see this, and vote for these corrupt politicians anyway, if they are so conditioned by the Democratic media that they reflexively vote "D" even given the consequences then they have no one to blame but themselves for the result. No one should wring thier hands over what happens - I won't.
Some months back I had some work in Camden and looked at all the vacant lots, and got a real vision of how a city can be reduced to just an area of land through the incompetence and corruption of leaders. Without people a city becomes just that, a plot of land. If the people don't want police to do their job effectively, it's what will happen, people will simply go elsewhere when crime gets too bad. Look at Newark's population, look at Detroit, look at other cities under Democrats. The people voted for leaders that adopted policies that caused those who lived there to leave, and now much of Detroit et als are just that an area of land, sans people, a place that used to be a city. Where did the people go? Elsewhere.
History is filled with similar examples but it isn't usually as a result of the policies of the leaders.
Can't happen in New York? Wrong - of course it can - there's nothing that insulates New York from the ills that policians can impose on it. We shall shortly find out if the era of Giuiliani and Bloomberg is a short interlude in the death of the city - what guarantee is there that New York won't immediately resume its 1990 slide to oblivion once a Democratic mayor, heholden to the unoins and the splinter groups, is back in office?
Those who recall the Dinkins era should also recall the drugs, crime, the constant fiscal problems, the crowds of homeless, the sqeegee men, the spray paint all over the place, the inability for government to do something as simple as cleaning up Times Square - despite decades of effort.
If anything ever proved the importance of good government it was how Giuliani saved new York. But New York is also ground zero for the Democratic media and Giuliani never got any credit for saving the city - certainly not in terms of comparison with the frightful mess that had been made of it for years by Democratic politicans. Likewise formerr Republican Bloomberg has never recieved the credit for what he did, not in terms of Bloomberg continuing Giuliani's policies which is what Bloomberg has done.
It is almost fitting that the litigation against stop and frisk is happening now, at the end of the Bloomberg era, and may later been seen as the beginning of the end for the city as the old, corrupt ways resume once we have a Democrat in the Mayor's office. You have to wonder how long it will take for the new administration in city hall to destroy what Giuliani built, and what Bloomberg carried on. it doesn't seem right that the lives of 8 million people are shortly going to be in the hands of those who have shown that they cannot govern, or that thier method of governance leads to such dreadful consequences.
But, the voters have no one but themselves to blame - certainly there have been more than enough evidence of just how awful the Democratic way of governing is - just look at places like Newark, Paterson, New York pre Giuliani and others and it is there for all to see. If the voters see this or should see this, and vote for these corrupt politicians anyway, if they are so conditioned by the Democratic media that they reflexively vote "D" even given the consequences then they have no one to blame but themselves for the result. No one should wring thier hands over what happens - I won't.
California - Still Dreaming
There is no media in California pointing out there that it new tax policy of "soaking the rich" was a bad idea, there will also be no politican doing the same, and since the Republican Party is so weak what it says doesn't count. Even as the State sinks the citizens of California will never connect higher taxes to anything bad, since the control of the means of communication by Democrats means that no one will be making that connection, at least no one of any significance and reach (sorry to say that).
The traditional American spirit of rugged individualism and independence is DEAD in California - it is dying in the rest of America, along with any hesitation to take benefits from the government - Democrats have used their decades of control of government and media to recreate the citizenry to one that is more conducive to Democratic control. In the new Democratic State of California dependence on government is good, as is being raised by one parent, in a community where high levels of crime is the norm, where government workers make far more than their counterparts in the private sector (hence the jobs are more desirable), and where the only people who have money are those at the very top (the good rich), while the rest (excepting gov't workers and the party apparatchiks) are the hordes of poor, too stupid to know what they have lost - or they came from elsewhere and never knew any different, only that here is better than there, at least for now. After a few years it won't be possible to tell the difference.
Californians will NEVER wake up and realize that soaking the rich is a mistake - the blame for financial problems will always fall elsewhere. Those who leave should leave, but the ulitmate irony is that Californians who do leave bring their voting habits with them. Such is the effectiveness of conditioning by Democraic media.
The sad thing is that competent government works - who would have thought that it would be possible to halve the welfare rolls with competent, conservative reforms, who would have thought that a (for the most part) competent Rudy Giuliani could make crime a non-issue in New York, who would have thought that Ronald Reagan in 1980 could add millions of jobs, and make America prosperous again after Carter destroyed the economy.
California could be great, but because Democrats have access to public funds through public unions as well as control of the means of communication means that it won't be. California is firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party which is rapidly transforming the society to one more amenable to continuation of Democratic control. This means using tax and regulatory policy to convince those who disagree with the new California to leave, importing and making up the lost population (with the help of hapless Republicans who are soon to lose Texas and elsewhere through the new amnesty law) through immigration, legal and illegal, using welfare policies and media to encourage single parenting, which creates dependence on government and a cycle of that dependence, as well as high crime which further induces dependence, and as a side benefit causes low educational achievements so that the citizenry is too dumb to understand how badly they are being used, and finally to keep everyone divided and hence more pliable. It means doing things Democrats do, with the predictable result that California, once so prosperous, is now permanently economically challenged.
The foregoing is all to the good for Democrats, who see the new society as one where they will get ALL the votes, and none of the blame, since they control the means of communication.
"Regret" soaking the rich? It is a laughable concept - anything that happens, albeit detrimental by "old" standards, is all to the good in the new Democratic society being created. No matter how bad it gets, the people of California will never understand why their society is doing so poorly, even as the state becomes economically Detroitified. Tourism will be there maybe, but tourism is the business of the third world.
You wonder what it would take to wake people up in California that their choice of leaders is what's dooming them to future poverty. With media firmly in the hands of those leaders, and the society becoming ever more pliant, with the alternative - Republicans - in the hands of inept, incompetent bunglers like Boehner (a man who is working full time for the position of minority leader in the House), don't look for change - ever, in a million years.
Who would have thought that it was so easy to fool all of the people all of the time?
The traditional American spirit of rugged individualism and independence is DEAD in California - it is dying in the rest of America, along with any hesitation to take benefits from the government - Democrats have used their decades of control of government and media to recreate the citizenry to one that is more conducive to Democratic control. In the new Democratic State of California dependence on government is good, as is being raised by one parent, in a community where high levels of crime is the norm, where government workers make far more than their counterparts in the private sector (hence the jobs are more desirable), and where the only people who have money are those at the very top (the good rich), while the rest (excepting gov't workers and the party apparatchiks) are the hordes of poor, too stupid to know what they have lost - or they came from elsewhere and never knew any different, only that here is better than there, at least for now. After a few years it won't be possible to tell the difference.
Californians will NEVER wake up and realize that soaking the rich is a mistake - the blame for financial problems will always fall elsewhere. Those who leave should leave, but the ulitmate irony is that Californians who do leave bring their voting habits with them. Such is the effectiveness of conditioning by Democraic media.
The sad thing is that competent government works - who would have thought that it would be possible to halve the welfare rolls with competent, conservative reforms, who would have thought that a (for the most part) competent Rudy Giuliani could make crime a non-issue in New York, who would have thought that Ronald Reagan in 1980 could add millions of jobs, and make America prosperous again after Carter destroyed the economy.
California could be great, but because Democrats have access to public funds through public unions as well as control of the means of communication means that it won't be. California is firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party which is rapidly transforming the society to one more amenable to continuation of Democratic control. This means using tax and regulatory policy to convince those who disagree with the new California to leave, importing and making up the lost population (with the help of hapless Republicans who are soon to lose Texas and elsewhere through the new amnesty law) through immigration, legal and illegal, using welfare policies and media to encourage single parenting, which creates dependence on government and a cycle of that dependence, as well as high crime which further induces dependence, and as a side benefit causes low educational achievements so that the citizenry is too dumb to understand how badly they are being used, and finally to keep everyone divided and hence more pliable. It means doing things Democrats do, with the predictable result that California, once so prosperous, is now permanently economically challenged.
The foregoing is all to the good for Democrats, who see the new society as one where they will get ALL the votes, and none of the blame, since they control the means of communication.
"Regret" soaking the rich? It is a laughable concept - anything that happens, albeit detrimental by "old" standards, is all to the good in the new Democratic society being created. No matter how bad it gets, the people of California will never understand why their society is doing so poorly, even as the state becomes economically Detroitified. Tourism will be there maybe, but tourism is the business of the third world.
You wonder what it would take to wake people up in California that their choice of leaders is what's dooming them to future poverty. With media firmly in the hands of those leaders, and the society becoming ever more pliant, with the alternative - Republicans - in the hands of inept, incompetent bunglers like Boehner (a man who is working full time for the position of minority leader in the House), don't look for change - ever, in a million years.
Who would have thought that it was so easy to fool all of the people all of the time?
THE REPUBLICANS AND THE CITIES
Republicans have essentially abandoned the cities and the result has been catastrophic, not just for Republicans, but for city dwellers - ESPECIALLY minorities who have suffered under Democratic policies that have destroyed their families, criminalized their communities, taken away their will to be educated, impoverished their neighborhoods, and worked on nullifying any semblence of American traditional self reliant individualism in these communities and replaced it with some awful dependence culture unique to history.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The insanity created by the one party Democratic politics, essentially the ruin of entire cities, has led to Democrats getting all the votes while at the same time delivering nothing to the governed but corruption, misery, hypocrisy, manipulation and double talk. Democratic lock on the media has led to adoption by ALL media of policies that hide the facts underlying the corrupt rule of Democratic leaders, under which these communites act as islands of repression, used as income producing poverty centers, supporting the entire Democratic dominated poverty industry, and subject to every whim of rabble rousing Democratic leaders.
Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at crime and education rates for certain groups in cities under long term Democratic control, not just generally but as a percentage of the population. Look at disparities in income levels, look at the number of children born to single mothers, which are a critically important indicator of the child's future success in life. Which media led to acceptance of the notion of a single mother raising children? That claimed it as something noble, while at the same time marginalizaing the male role in the family?
It all works out pretty neatly for Democrats - they create the conditions and culture for a community that is perfect for Democratic control and a vehicle for making money for Democratic causes. The resulting statistics in these communities are DISMAL, especially as to the lack of a private sector, but you don't hear a word about it in the Democratic media because of policies adopted for the very specific purpose of protecting the Democratic rulers.
It takes a peculiar form of blindness not to see this from the inside, but then again Democrats have had decades to hone their skills at conditioning. These communities tend to be insular, and anything that is disagreeable to the ruling class is dismissed with either mockery or claimed as racist. The fact that the communities are not doing well under common sense notions of what doing well means is irrelevant - what counts is whether the community is doing well as defined by Democrats.
And since Democats are able to use the community to drain money from everywhere else, and maintain a lock on votes means that these communities are doing well indeed - and Democrats would't change a thing.
In some former time, when one party was an utter failure at governing the people would come to the conclusion that it was time for a change, and the other party would be voted in. But, the creation of entrenched areas of Democratic Party rule in most major cities (New York being a happy - for the people involved - exception as to the mayor's office, although this is temporary, as New York will soon resume the slide to the bottom - as defined by others, for Democrats it is no such thing - that was temporarily interrupted when Giuliani was elected in 1989) has led to institutional corruption at every level, and acceptance of a status quo that would be unacceptable to any reasonable person. But, conditioning by Democratic media, as a result of adoption of journalistic conventions - political correctness - has led to acceptance of what would formerlly have been unacceptable. This in turn has led to not just one party rule, but the belief by the community that the awful conditions that exist are not the fault of the party in charge, but "others' i.e. Republicans, who haven't wielded power in the community for decades, if ever. The lack of any real check on corruption has led to its institutionalization, a natural consequence of of years and years one party rule by a people that were bent on corruption to begin with.
Accordingly, Republican abandonement of the cities has been a disaster - and Romney's decision to focus all of his resources elsewhere means that these people haven't heard from anyone but the Democrats for years. With nothing else challenging them, Democrat's have convinced the people in Detroit, of Camden, East St. Louis, Chicago, Washington and other places to re-elect, year after year, the very people responsible for their being mired in poverty, and used as a vehicle for Democrats enriching themselves.
Those on the outside who see all this happening think that the people involved will somehow wake up and toss out the politicans responsible. But, that will never happen unless someone from the outside comes in and tells the truth - the unvarnished truth - not only about what's going on but how it got that way. Take a look at some of these places - here in New Jersey it can be seen in parts of Paterson, in much of Newark, Irvington, East Orange, Hillside et als. Year after year goes by and places that were at one time centers of prosperity, little crime, high education are mired in the American version of poverty, whatever you want to call it for decades upon decade - even as the rest of the country goes through periods of prosperity. The people involved are subject to a barrage of messages from Democrats blaming everything but the Democratic leadership for the problems, but year after year after year nothing changes - conditions become, if anything, worse. Through it all no one says what's really wrong, even as the state comes up with plan after plan - tosses millions if not billions of dollars down a rathole to be used by corrupt Democrats for very personal purposes, all of which does nothing. In Newark the State opened an arts center - people get there from the suburbs by highway ringed with security, all the way there and all the way back. Very nice, but how does this help the city? It's a bad joke, as bad as when Atlantic City put up "intercept" parking lots on the approaches to the city for so that casino and hotel workers from outside the city could park. It's a bad joke, just like the sports complexes that were built to house a basketball team that soon left, and a hockey (hockey!) team that has almost no chance of staying.
It's now been half a century since the riots in Newark, and that city could be seen as a microcosm of the terrible consequences of Democratic control and Republican abandonment of the cities. I simply do not have the time to list all of the Democratic abuses in Newark, soon to be New Jersey's second largest city, a once prosperous and beautiful center of the nations insurance industry. Thanks to Democratic media conditioning it would be practically unthinkable for Republicans to come to power in Newark - unless somehow Republicans can shake off the media strait jacket and tell the entire truth about what's going on and how it got that way. No doubt Democrats would get hysterical and scream racism, as they always do, but at this point, for Republicans what would they have to lose?
But that's the problem, Republicans, their leadership, are far too timid, far too spineless, far too "go along get along," far too accepting of a secondary role in society to make assertions about conditions that everyone knows about but no one says a word. The Democratic emperor has no clothes (and I am not talking about Obama - he is almost irrelevant to this discussion) but for some reason there is no one on the Republican side brave enough to say a thing about it.
When did Republicans make an agreement with Democrats to not mention certain subjects? - because that's essentially what's going on. How did Republicans decide to say nothing about the Democratic rape of certain city communities, or of entire cities?
So, another generation gets lost, and we all sit by and watch as our nation slides down the drain. The sad irony is that Democrats are extremely vulnerable - the hysteria voiced by Democratic leaders should anyone even hint at any of these issues is revealing of that vulnerability.
We keep waiting for someone in the cities to come out and say what the rest of the country knows, but it isn't going to happen - it will not be that easy. Republicans have waited far too long, and it will take a concerted effort by courageous people.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The insanity created by the one party Democratic politics, essentially the ruin of entire cities, has led to Democrats getting all the votes while at the same time delivering nothing to the governed but corruption, misery, hypocrisy, manipulation and double talk. Democratic lock on the media has led to adoption by ALL media of policies that hide the facts underlying the corrupt rule of Democratic leaders, under which these communites act as islands of repression, used as income producing poverty centers, supporting the entire Democratic dominated poverty industry, and subject to every whim of rabble rousing Democratic leaders.
Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at crime and education rates for certain groups in cities under long term Democratic control, not just generally but as a percentage of the population. Look at disparities in income levels, look at the number of children born to single mothers, which are a critically important indicator of the child's future success in life. Which media led to acceptance of the notion of a single mother raising children? That claimed it as something noble, while at the same time marginalizaing the male role in the family?
It all works out pretty neatly for Democrats - they create the conditions and culture for a community that is perfect for Democratic control and a vehicle for making money for Democratic causes. The resulting statistics in these communities are DISMAL, especially as to the lack of a private sector, but you don't hear a word about it in the Democratic media because of policies adopted for the very specific purpose of protecting the Democratic rulers.
It takes a peculiar form of blindness not to see this from the inside, but then again Democrats have had decades to hone their skills at conditioning. These communities tend to be insular, and anything that is disagreeable to the ruling class is dismissed with either mockery or claimed as racist. The fact that the communities are not doing well under common sense notions of what doing well means is irrelevant - what counts is whether the community is doing well as defined by Democrats.
And since Democats are able to use the community to drain money from everywhere else, and maintain a lock on votes means that these communities are doing well indeed - and Democrats would't change a thing.
In some former time, when one party was an utter failure at governing the people would come to the conclusion that it was time for a change, and the other party would be voted in. But, the creation of entrenched areas of Democratic Party rule in most major cities (New York being a happy - for the people involved - exception as to the mayor's office, although this is temporary, as New York will soon resume the slide to the bottom - as defined by others, for Democrats it is no such thing - that was temporarily interrupted when Giuliani was elected in 1989) has led to institutional corruption at every level, and acceptance of a status quo that would be unacceptable to any reasonable person. But, conditioning by Democratic media, as a result of adoption of journalistic conventions - political correctness - has led to acceptance of what would formerlly have been unacceptable. This in turn has led to not just one party rule, but the belief by the community that the awful conditions that exist are not the fault of the party in charge, but "others' i.e. Republicans, who haven't wielded power in the community for decades, if ever. The lack of any real check on corruption has led to its institutionalization, a natural consequence of of years and years one party rule by a people that were bent on corruption to begin with.
Accordingly, Republican abandonement of the cities has been a disaster - and Romney's decision to focus all of his resources elsewhere means that these people haven't heard from anyone but the Democrats for years. With nothing else challenging them, Democrat's have convinced the people in Detroit, of Camden, East St. Louis, Chicago, Washington and other places to re-elect, year after year, the very people responsible for their being mired in poverty, and used as a vehicle for Democrats enriching themselves.
Those on the outside who see all this happening think that the people involved will somehow wake up and toss out the politicans responsible. But, that will never happen unless someone from the outside comes in and tells the truth - the unvarnished truth - not only about what's going on but how it got that way. Take a look at some of these places - here in New Jersey it can be seen in parts of Paterson, in much of Newark, Irvington, East Orange, Hillside et als. Year after year goes by and places that were at one time centers of prosperity, little crime, high education are mired in the American version of poverty, whatever you want to call it for decades upon decade - even as the rest of the country goes through periods of prosperity. The people involved are subject to a barrage of messages from Democrats blaming everything but the Democratic leadership for the problems, but year after year after year nothing changes - conditions become, if anything, worse. Through it all no one says what's really wrong, even as the state comes up with plan after plan - tosses millions if not billions of dollars down a rathole to be used by corrupt Democrats for very personal purposes, all of which does nothing. In Newark the State opened an arts center - people get there from the suburbs by highway ringed with security, all the way there and all the way back. Very nice, but how does this help the city? It's a bad joke, as bad as when Atlantic City put up "intercept" parking lots on the approaches to the city for so that casino and hotel workers from outside the city could park. It's a bad joke, just like the sports complexes that were built to house a basketball team that soon left, and a hockey (hockey!) team that has almost no chance of staying.
It's now been half a century since the riots in Newark, and that city could be seen as a microcosm of the terrible consequences of Democratic control and Republican abandonment of the cities. I simply do not have the time to list all of the Democratic abuses in Newark, soon to be New Jersey's second largest city, a once prosperous and beautiful center of the nations insurance industry. Thanks to Democratic media conditioning it would be practically unthinkable for Republicans to come to power in Newark - unless somehow Republicans can shake off the media strait jacket and tell the entire truth about what's going on and how it got that way. No doubt Democrats would get hysterical and scream racism, as they always do, but at this point, for Republicans what would they have to lose?
But that's the problem, Republicans, their leadership, are far too timid, far too spineless, far too "go along get along," far too accepting of a secondary role in society to make assertions about conditions that everyone knows about but no one says a word. The Democratic emperor has no clothes (and I am not talking about Obama - he is almost irrelevant to this discussion) but for some reason there is no one on the Republican side brave enough to say a thing about it.
When did Republicans make an agreement with Democrats to not mention certain subjects? - because that's essentially what's going on. How did Republicans decide to say nothing about the Democratic rape of certain city communities, or of entire cities?
So, another generation gets lost, and we all sit by and watch as our nation slides down the drain. The sad irony is that Democrats are extremely vulnerable - the hysteria voiced by Democratic leaders should anyone even hint at any of these issues is revealing of that vulnerability.
We keep waiting for someone in the cities to come out and say what the rest of the country knows, but it isn't going to happen - it will not be that easy. Republicans have waited far too long, and it will take a concerted effort by courageous people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)